EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MINUTES

Present: Alexander, Beck, Bradford, Hachtmann, Ledder, Moeller, Rapkin, Scholz, Stock, Zimmers

Absent: Alloway, Bolin, Flowers

Date: Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Location: Academic Senate Office, 420 University Terrace

Note: These are not verbatim minutes. They are a summary of the discussions at the Executive Committee meeting as corrected by those participating.

______________________________________________________________________

1.0 Call to Order

Moeller called the meeting to order at 3:06 p.m.

2.0 Announcements

2.1 Postpone Committee Report

Moeller stated that she received a request from Professor Walklin, co-chair of the Honorary Degrees Committee, asking that the Committee report be postponed until the March Senate meeting because the committee has been unable to meet. Moeller noted the message also stated that the committee has great nominees for the Pound Howard award.

2.2 Meeting with Executive Director Charles Bethea

Moeller reported that Lied Center Executive Director Bethea will be meeting with the Committee on February 21^st to discuss possible faculty discounts at the Lied Center.

3.0 Approval of 1/17/07 Minutes

Alexander moved and Zimmers seconded approval of the minutes as amended. Motion approved.

4.0 Unfinished Business

4.1 Academic Dishonesty

Moeller reported that she is gathering the documents on academic dishonesty and the item will be on the agenda next week.

4.2 Media Letter

Bradford stated that he has concerns with asking the faculty to submit to the Executive Committee a one page summary of noteworthy research work for the reporters. He stated that he does not think the Executive Committee should be responsible for filtering these summaries to the reporters. He suggested that the Executive Committee should give the email addresses of the reporters to Senators and suggest that the faculty contact the reporters directly.

Moeller stated that a brief summary of work conducted by faculty that impacts the state might be one venue for wider coverage through the media. The media could contact the faculty member directly to further discuss their work. She stated that this is akin to a press release and it is up to the press to pursue those topics of interest to them and the state.

Moeller stated that it would be beneficial to become better acquainted with the new 23 state legislators in order to inform them of the good work at the university and how daily life in Nebraska is impacted by the university. She noted that in the past there was an effort to adopt a senator by having a faculty member contact and talk to the legislator. She suggested that a luncheon on a topic of mutual interest for a small group of legislators and faculty may be a good beginning. She pointed out that the budget is going to be a major issue and we need to get the support of the legislature. She stated that she would inquire regarding possible funding for such an undertaking.

Bradford pointed out that it sounds like lobbying. He asked whether the foundation fund would cover these kinds of activities. Moeller stated that the funds were used to have luncheons in the past.

Rapkin suggested inviting Bill Avery to come speak with the Executive Committee. He stated that Avery might have insights on how best to approach the legislators. Beck suggested contacting Ron Raikes, DiAnna Schimek, or Ernie Chambers since they have served on the legislature for some time. She stated that she thinks a two prong approach would be great to do.

Zimmers pointed out that Extension basically does this kind of thing already. He noted that there is a committee that keeps track of the different counties and which legislators Extension people meet with. He stated that the meeting is usually a breakfast or a luncheon and the Extension faculty members will give a brief presentation about their programs and what is coming up in the near future. Moeller asked how the legislators are contacted. Zimmers stated that the senators or their staff members are usually called. He stated that they usually hold these meetings in December.

Moeller suggested that the Executive Committee could have a breakfast meeting in the union and invite two or three legislators. She stated that she will try to set something up in the next three or four weeks. She stated that the other way to get information out to the new legislators is through the media. Bradford recommended informing Michelle Waite, Assistant to the Chancellor for Community Relations, and Ron Withem, Associate Vice President of University Affairs, about the Committee’s plan to meet with legislators.

4.3 Update on Diversity Committee

Moeller reported that she spoke with Bill Nunez, Director of Institutional Research and Planning, who stated that he will discuss the diversity committee with the Academic Planning Committee. He stated that the APC will recommend someone to work on the committee. Moeller suggested that the diversity committee should include someone from stakeholder committees such as the Chancellor’s Commission on the Status of Women and other similar groups. She stated that she has a tentative list of people but she does not think the committee should be too large.

5.0 New Business

5.1 Review of Board of Regents Meeting

Moeller stated that it was a fascinating meeting with demographic information being provided on students and their families. She noted that U.S. Census Bureau information was distributed which showed that Nebraska ranked number six in the country in terms of the state/local tax burden as a percentage of income. She pointed out that Kansas ranked 18th, Iowa 26th, Wyoming 33rd, Missouri 34th, Colorado 38th, and South Dakota 45th.

Moeller reported that need-based financial aid information was also presented. She stated that overall college continuation rate by state in 2004 ranked Nebraska as 16^th. She noted that she was surprised to see that 20.3% of Pell grants in Nebraska went to students in private universities. She stated that UNL had the highest proportion of Pell recipients for the NU campuses.

Moeller reported that in the Nebraska Measure Up 2006 Affordability Data the percent of income needed to pay for college expenses minus financial aid at public 4-year colleges increased from 17% in 1992 to 27% in 2006.

Moeller stated that for the 20% of the population with the lowest income, 64% of their income is needed to pay the net cost for going to a public four year university as compared to 6% for the 20% of the population with the highest income.

Moeller stated that the information provided shows that the trend is that state support for operating expenses for the university has decreased significantly leading to increased institutional reliance on tuition and fee income.

Moeller reported that the average loan indebtedness of NU undergraduate students is very close among the four campuses. She noted that the average student at the university leaves with an indebtedness of $16,872. She noted that the highest number of students with loans was at UNK. She stated that the highest percentage of financial aid came from loans and Pell grants.

Moeller stated that need-based aid as a percentage of undergraduate tuition and fees shows UNL at 79.1% compared to 87.5% for Colorado, 88.4% for Colorado State, 50.2% for Illinois, 48.9% for Iowa, 95.8% for Iowa State, 42% for Kansas, 90.2% for Minnesota, 58% for Missouri, 67% for Ohio, and 69% for Purdue. She reported that overall 40% of Nebraska students do not continue on to college, 60% of low income students do not continue to college, and 60% of Nebraska families need financial assistance.

Moeller stated that all of the information reported is tied to the university’s strategic plan. She stated that information on graduation rates was also provided. She noted that the strategic plan calls for an increase in graduation rates to match our peers. She pointed out that the six year graduation rate for the university system increased from 42.3% in 2000 to 55.8% in 2005. She stated that UNL’s graduation rate is 63% and our peers’ graduation rate is 67.7%. She pointed out that the retention rate for UNL freshman is 84% compared to our peers’ retention rate of 85.7%.

Alexander asked what the overall goal was of the presentation. Moeller stated that with the strategic plan includes accountability measures that must be addressed. She stated that the Board of Regents will be looking at one of these measures at each of their meetings. The information provided at this meeting was to look at the accountability measures for six year graduation rates and how well we are doing.

Moeller stated that another thing that was discussed was how much off campus work students are doing. She reported that the National Survey of Student Engagement showed that 79.6% of first year UNL students worked 0 – 10 hours per week. She noted that only 1.7% of first year UNL students worked 30 or more hours per week compared to UNK’s 7% and UNO’s 14.8%. She pointed out that students who work approximately 10 -15 hours per week off campus typically are more successful students because they become more organized with their work. She stated that there is a big increase in the number of hours worked off campus for senior level students. She stated that for UNL 11.5% of senior students work more than 30 hours per week.

Moeller reported that measures were presented as to how the administration plans on publicizing how students can get through the academic experience quicker.

Bradford noted that our students are working significantly more than the national average.

Scholz asked if specific recommendations are made by the Board of Regents when this kind of information is presented. Moeller stated that the Regents can interrupt and ask questions for discussion during the presentations. She noted that the Regents are very informed about the information they are looking at.

Alexander pointed out that in looking at the data the figures may be skewed somewhat because students coming from divorced families may put down the lower income of the two parents when applying for grants. Bradford stated that the applications require that the custodial income must be indicated unless there is joint custody.

Moeller stated that the university is trying to find innovative ways to get more money to help students. She noted that private sources are being explored to assist students in need. Bradford asked if the information provided included foundation scholarships. Moeller stated that the information was just based on government funding.

5.2 Report on Liberal Education

Moeller noted that she forwarded the AACU report on liberal education to the Executive Committee. She stated that it is a wonderful document that addresses general education issues and provides a framework. She stated that she would like to have the Committee read the report for discussion at the next meeting.

Moeller reported that she received an email message from Associate Vice Chancellor Wilson who stated that the College of Business Administration’s curriculum committee passed the general education proposals unanimously and they are recommending that the college faculty approve the proposals.

Scholz stated that there has been a lot of discussion in the College of Architecture on the proposals. He stated that the College’s representative to the General Education Advisory Committee is working to get the concerns of the College sorted out and there may be another meeting for the College to reconsider the proposals.

Moeller reported that the College of Education and Human Services is meeting on Friday to discuss the proposals. She asked when the College of Engineering will be meeting on the proposals. Alexander stated that he thinks there will be a meeting sometime in the spring.

Ledder reported that two proposed amendments were made to the Arts & Sciences draft advisory statement but both of the proposed amendments failed. He stated that the college faculty overwhelmingly approved the draft advisory statement. The three comments about the outcomes recommend a course with a historical perspective, having ore than one writing course, and rephrasing the oral/visual communication outcome. The first two of these could be addressed through guidelines interpreting existing outcomes.

Ledder stated that a key recommendation is for a statement of guidelines that should be used to determine whether a proposed course satisfies some outcome(s). He pointed out that with the current ES/IS program, courses can change every year. He stated that there is a feeling that guidelines should be in place that would serve as criteria for college curriculum committees when they judge whether a proposed course should be added to the general education program.

The final recommendation is for the GEPT and GEAC to create a rigorous and continuous approval process for courses. He noted that faculty members feel that courses must really demonstrate that they should be added to the program.

Moeller asked whether the statement is moving forward. Ledder stated that they are and they are now official recommendations to the committees. He pointed out that the GEPT and GEAC committees can ignore the recommendations or to accept any portion of them. He stated that he believes the purpose of the statements will be to give the general education committees an idea of what to expect for the next vote at Arts & Sciences. He surmised that if the general education committee incorporates the recommendations into the next set of proposals they will probably be approved. If not, they could get voted down.

5.3 Gallup Program

The Committee agreed to discuss the Gallup program with the Chancellor to see who the faculty members were that made the decision to have the program. The Committee noted that there did not seem to be any knowledge of the program until the recent announcement. Moeller questioned who would be driving the agenda of the program, the university or Gallup?

5.4 Professor of Practice

Stock reported that the professor of practice position continues to be controversial in some areas. He noted that some people are concerned that the creation of these positions is a move away from tenured positions. Bradford stated that when the presentation was made to the Senate on the positions it was pointed out that the positions would not make a lot of changes on campus. Beck stated that the Executive Committee had numerous discussions about the positions. She stated that she believed it was an effort to try to equalize a position for teaching similar to the current research professor position. Moeller noted that it was an effort to deal with the senior lecturers position by building in a career ladder that allows these individuals to be promoted in rank from Assistant to Full Professor of Practice. She stated that some departments are jumping in on it and others are not.

Beck stated that there are only a few senior lecturers. She stated that most non-tenured positions are lecturers. Moeller suggested that the Committee ask the Chancellor how many professors of practice positions have been created.

Scholz stated that his program has been having some experience with the position. He noted that one of the issues with these positions is whether they can become graduate faculty associates. He pointed out that criteria listed on the Graduate Studies nomination form for graduate faculty associate do not acknowledge the professor of practice; the criteria just refer to senior lecturers, a title that is being abandoned by the University.

Scholz stated that on the Academic Affairs website there are some criteria for each rank.

Stock stated that his department has been looking at the criteria. He noted that one of the issues that arise is that often people in these positions develop leadership and can wind up getting publications. He pointed out that there could be fuzzy distinction between tenured ranks and the professor of practice if professors of practice start getting publications.

Moeller stated that there appears to be a national trend, particularly in the Ivy League schools, to have professors at non tenured ranks. Ledder stated that it would be nice to have a rule that only a certain percentage of the faculty in a department can be hired off tenure lines.

Rapkin pointed out that having faculty members without tenure gives the administration a lot more flexibility when budgetary times become tough. Bradford stated that it is for this reason that the Reduction in Force Procedures needs to be revised quickly. Moeller pointed out that the revisions should be simple and not mired in bureaucracy. Beck stated that she has a good idea on how to make revisions to the procedures without making major changes.

Beck suggested that Moeller get information from Bill Nunez on the number of lecturer, senior lecturer, and professor of practice positions.

Stock noted that one of the questions that came up when the position was first being considered is whether a professor of practice faculty member could apply for a tenured faculty position. Ledder pointed out that there were two different concerns. He stated that if a person is hired as a professor of practice the department cannot vote to then change that position to a tenured position. However, if a tenured faculty position becomes available, a person who is a professor of practice could apply for the job.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:44 p.m. The next meeting of the Executive Committee will be on Wednesday, January 31, at 3:00 pm. The meeting will be held in 201 Canfield Administration. The minutes are respectfully submitted by Karen Griffin, Coordinator and Rick Alloway, Secretary.